StellaBlue
17.8K posts



Not only does the NYT response fall woefully short — it actually strengthens Israel's legal case against it. 1. Kristof minimizes Euro-Med's chairman as someone whose views "can't be taken lightly" — while failing to note a documented record that includes an Israeli anti-terrorism order against Abdu personally, and a brother-in-law who was a senior Hamas military commander. 2. Kristof cited peer-reviewed medical literature as scientific validation for the dog rape allegation. But that literature documents human-initiated bestiality and one accidental pet incident. Not one paper describes a dog trained to assault a human on command. 3. One of his only two named sources filed a petition with the Israeli Supreme Court after his detention, with lawyers, complaining about the food. He never mentioned rape. The Times calls this "additional details over time." That's not how things work. 4. Former PM Olmert accused Kristof of misrepresenting his words in the original column. The Times response doesn't mention him once. 5. The Times confirmed its legal team reviewed the column before publication. Those internal communications now potentially exist for discovery. The Times thought this response would put the story to bed. But what it actually does is hand Israel's lawyers new material on a silver platter.


@TuckerCarlson So it’s ok for Tucker to get $15 million from Islamist Billionaire & change his whole tune on Islam but he want to lecture others for receiving “foreign funding”


Platner holds 7 point lead over Collins in new Maine Senate poll thehill.com/homenews/campa…





Injection or squad?

























